|
Post by fox on Mar 30, 2006 7:28:24 GMT -6
Here's a question I meant to ask a week ago. I'm weak on sabre so bear with me...
Let's say Fencer A executes a point attack with a lunge and falls short. Fencer A stays in lunge, holding their arm extended. They do not let the point drop.
As soon as Fencer A's lunge ends, Fencer B attacks.
B does not beat/parry A's blade, and runs valid target onto A's point. B's attack also lands on valid target.
What is the call? (I ask because I later heard confused discussions vis-a-vis point in line.)
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Mar 30, 2006 8:58:04 GMT -6
"Attack (A) No, Counterattack, touch (B)."
In order to be valid, Point in Line must be established one tempo before the opponent's attack. Since Fencer B immediately attacked as soon as Fencer A's lunge ended, there was no tempo in between for Fencer A to establish PiL.
As for the wording of the call, there is a theory that says it should (literally) be "Attack (A) No. Attack (B) Arrives. Touch (B)." I was initially in favor of this logic. However, my most recent FOC argued against that as it removed the connection between A's failed attack and B's attack from the phrase. Thus, in actions where B's attack is clearly in response to A's failed attack, the proper call is "counterattack", despite it having begun after A's attack had already failed. I will adhere to this interpretation until I work for a different FOC.
|
|
|
Post by DavidSierra on Mar 30, 2006 10:05:55 GMT -6
Which will likely be the next FOC you work for.
The second phrasing is more accepted.
|
|
|
Post by jazz007 on Apr 5, 2006 16:24:24 GMT -6
Additionally, this is occasionally seen as "attack, no, riposte." It came up with the aforementioned FOC, who was rather vocal in her comments regarding, "There was no parry! How can there be a riposte!" It's still pretty common to hear "riposte" called after a failed attack, which could be relevant here.
|
|
bobb121
Scribe
[ss:Antique Foil]
Posts: 47
|
Post by bobb121 on Jun 12, 2006 14:05:26 GMT -6
In response to the riposte phrase, I believe that is interpreted as a distance parry followed by a riposte.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Gorman on Jun 12, 2006 16:08:38 GMT -6
I heard saber coaches and referees use it for years until the FOC made a concerted effort to make it go away. As a coach I use it to distinguish from countering as you pull distance, on the few occassions I still ref, I try to toe the party line.
Dan
|
|
|
Post by kd5mdk on Jun 13, 2006 0:02:52 GMT -6
There are lots of phrases that coaches use that referees should never touch (like "parry-4"). This happens to be one of them, and I may be imagining things, but I think that standardizing the referee procedures is part of an effort to clean up sabre refereeing and eliminate what I hear was a very heavy degree of bias and cronyism.
|
|
|
Post by saberbobcat on Jun 13, 2006 0:06:34 GMT -6
Eeeewwwww..... Do you really think that can be done?
|
|